Another Cybertruck Measurement Dimensions Thread - Based on New Videos

[JBee]

Rear left fender also houses the flap for the charge port now, so probably another reason the plastic flares might be captured in the 80" width regs. I don't much care either way with the extra lights or not.

I don't think the 3 position lights front and rear are a deal breaker or add to much cost, with wiring it can only be in the $10's each. I think the width is a consequence of the overall trimming of the design in an effort to get as much practicality out of the smallest, and most cost effective use of material.

Those pictures of the front bumper camera being right next to the front number plate holder, raise another issue, and that is that in european countries the number plates are quite long at 20" and would end up covering the camera. If you mount them above the camera you would end up blocking the 3 lights underneath, but given they aren't required in europe etc, it would matter, except for the look.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

I don't think the 3 position lights front and rear are a deal breaker or add to much cost, with wiring it can only be in the $10's each. I think the width is a consequence of the overall trimming of the design in an effort to get as much practicality out of the smallest, and most cost effective use of material.

agree that incremental cost seems negligible and alone probably wouldn’t be determinative of overall dimension design. but, the expense (both of design, equipment, and future maintenance) is not entirely negligible, either.

which is why it may have been just an added consideration, or merely a bonus, of other, dominate considerations like weight-to-battery, etc.

I think that if a designer landed at 80” exactly, the incremental cost of the lighting systems would nudge you to shave another 0.2” off, as is custom for full sized trucks (that aren’t specialty beasts).

And with the CT, the way to achieve that shaving below 80” would be very straightforward!

here are the alpha prototype fender flares (front then rear):

Contrast with pre-pro beta (front then rear):

I note also that on the pre-pro beta the front flares are wider than the rear flares, if only by adjusting the angle downward on the rear flares (and likely owing to the the SS envelope being slightly wider in rear than front):

 

[MonkeyDeLuffy]

agree that incremental cost seems negligible and alone probably wouldn’t be determinative of overall dimension design. but, the expense (both of design, equipment, and future maintenance) is not entirely negligible, either.

which is why it may have been just an added consideration, or merely a bonus, of other, dominate considerations like weight-to-battery, etc.

I think that if a designer landed at 80” exactly, the incremental cost of the lighting systems would nudge you to shave another 0.2” off, as is custom for full sized trucks (that aren’t specialty beasts).

And with the CT, the way to achieve that shaving below 80” would be very straightforward!

here are the alpha prototype fender flares (front then rear):

Contrast with pre-pro beta (front then rear):

I note also that on the pre-pro beta the front flares are wider than the rear flares, if only by adjusting the angle downward on the rear flares (and likely owing to the the SS envelope being slightly wider in rear than front):

Man, I wish IRS didnt hire you audit my tax.

 

[rizvend]

Ok Lets have a look at dimensions then. To preempt any expectations, I'm only interested in getting as close an approximation on real measurements as possible. I'm not really trying to predict certain feature, rather only understand what could be possible.

So first up I used an online tool to generate some measurements on a screen grab with a bit better resolution and it comes up with this:

The picture is not of the CT full width, but the camera is in the centre of the rear, so easy to measure from. So vault cover width is around 60" and the vehicle width in the rear is around 75", total width including fenders approaching 80". Note that both the tyre width and number plate match the dimensional scale.

Now that we know the sail is 8" wide above the tail light we can look at another image and do it again, and see just how distorted by perspective it is.

So although it looks like it might produce usable results, even if we use measurements on a single plane, it's actually fairly useless without lens distortion adjustment.

Now with that our of the way, I think if we really seriously want to get some usable dimensions the best thing to do would be to create and orthomosiac to scale, and then use that to create a CAD line drawing to extract dimensions from. The best way to do that is trying to get as many photos/video frames from as many different angles, also heights, of the same vehicle as possible. Having two different camera optics can also help. So maybe if we can assemble some pictures here, I'll look at trying to create an ortho from them.

In regards to the thickness of the sail storage there's a couple of variables, but one that is consistent is that the 34" wheel is around 11.2" wide, and requires a few degrees of articulation to turn with 4WS. So if you take 2.3" off that you still have 8.9", and then you still have to add a few inches on either side, for steering angle on that wheel diameter. So I'd expect the lower section of the sail, up to the highest wheel suspension articulation point, which would be above the bed, to be at least 14-15" on each side. There is also some 15" under the bed to the floor of the CT, which is about 1100l (38cuft) of volume just under the bed alone.

So, the only way my 3-wheeler would is backwards.

 

[JBee]

One of the other big things, at least here in Australia, is that the wheels are not allowed to stick out beyond the body of the vehicle. So maybe for here they will have to do slightly larger flares, or a different wheel offset, if that is possible whilst retaining wheel well clearances. So it would have to look like the first photo without the wheel cap. At least here the width lighting thing is unnecessary from what I know.

 

[greggertruck]

Ok Lets have a look at dimensions then. To preempt any expectations, I'm only interested in getting as close an approximation on real measurements as possible. I'm not really trying to predict certain feature, rather only understand what could be possible.

So first up I used an online tool to generate some measurements on a screen grab with a bit better resolution and it comes up with this:

The picture is not of the CT full width, but the camera is in the centre of the rear, so easy to measure from. So vault cover width is around 60" and the vehicle width in the rear is around 75", total width including fenders approaching 80". Note that both the tyre width and number plate match the dimensional scale.

Now that we know the sail is 8" wide above the tail light we can look at another image and do it again, and see just how distorted by perspective it is.

So although it looks like it might produce usable results, even if we use measurements on a single plane, it's actually fairly useless without lens distortion adjustment.

Now with that our of the way, I think if we really seriously want to get some usable dimensions the best thing to do would be to create and orthomosiac to scale, and then use that to create a CAD line drawing to extract dimensions from. The best way to do that is trying to get as many photos/video frames from as many different angles, also heights, of the same vehicle as possible. Having two different camera optics can also help. So maybe if we can assemble some pictures here, I'll look at trying to create an ortho from them.

In regards to the thickness of the sail storage there's a couple of variables, but one that is consistent is that the 34" wheel is around 11.2" wide, and requires a few degrees of articulation to turn with 4WS. So if you take 2.3" off that you still have 8.9", and then you still have to add a few inches on either side, for steering angle on that wheel diameter. So I'd expect the lower section of the sail, up to the highest wheel suspension articulation point, which would be above the bed, to be at least 14-15" on each side. There is also some 15" under the bed to the floor of the CT, which is about 1100l (38cuft) of volume just under the bed alone.

What online tool do you use to measure? I have a very good dead on side angle of the production beta no one has seen yet, I’d like to measure that.

Assuming the tires are sized at 35” like we’ve been kead to believe, we are in business!

 

[JBee]

What online tool do you use to measure? I have a very good dead on side angle of the production beta no one has seen yet, I’d like to measure that.

Assuming the tires are sized at 35” like we’ve been kead to believe, we are in business!

https://imagemeasurement.online/
Just be careful how you use the perspective adjustment, try it a few times. Also I believe the tyres are a bit smaller than 35".

If you have a folder or links of any photos or videos of the CT Pro beta I can use to create a pointcloud/orthomosiac, I can probably knock out some fairly accurate measurements and a CAD model from them that I can share here.

 

[cvalue13]

So, the only way my 3-wheeler would is backwards.

Here is what little the license plate measurements tells us about the interior bed dimensions.

• Note that this ~4’9” (+\- 1.5”) max width is ~consistent with measurements other’s have taken of the width of the alpha prototype bed at the Peterson Museum (iPhone measure from distance ranging from 4’11” to 5’1”)

• The Peterson alpha has very minor (relatively speaking) internal wheel well intrusions, meaning it’s bed was more nearly a consistent width from tailgate to bulkheak

• @JBee’s measurements earlier in this thread based on the license plate as standard have the max bed width @ ~5”, consistent with my +\-1.5 margin of error guess for my measurements

• these estimates of ~4’9” (+/-1.5”) of max bed width (not including wheel well intrusion) can be compared to an F150’s max bed width (not including wheel well intrusion):

​

​

• and here for another comparison is (someone else’s work) a Tacoma long-bed’s interior width bed dimensions:

Based on these estimate, the CT true “cargo” bed area (typically measured by constructions of the bed opening aperture) will be roughly equivalent to an F150 with a 5.5’ bed length. While the CT purports to have a 6-6.5” bed length, the encroaching lean towards tailgate of the bulkhead and roofline sill minimize the bed’s true “cargo” aperture, and meanwhile the CT’s slightly narrower proportions plus wheelwell encroachment at bed floor for >2/3 of the bed’s length are slightly heated by the F150’s bed floor width. we can assume Tesla is not so dumb as to make that distance between CT wheel wells any narrower than the F150’s (which is dictated by usefulness to laying down 4’ sheets of materials).

Which is all to say, back of napkin, there are a few advantages of size in the CT’s favor (length), a few advantages of size in the F150 5.5’ bed’s favor (width), but in each case at the margins of any clear advantage in utility except depending on exactly what one seeks to fit in the bed.

You can prob fit near identical number of golfballs in each. Whether your dresser drawer furniture will fit lengthways or sideways, will depend on details. Both will need tailgate down to fit a 4X8 sheet of material.

Both will suffice for weekend warriors

 

[TyPope]

Rear left fender also houses the flap for the charge port now, so probably another reason the plastic flares might be captured in the 80" width regs. I don't much care either way with the extra lights or not.

I don't think the 3 position lights front and rear are a deal breaker or add to much cost, with wiring it can only be in the $10's each. I think the width is a consequence of the overall trimming of the design in an effort to get as much practicality out of the smallest, and most cost effective use of material.

Those pictures of the front bumper camera being right next to the front number plate holder, raise another issue, and that is that in european countries the number plates are quite long at 20" and would end up covering the camera. If you mount them above the camera you would end up blocking the 3 lights underneath, but given they aren't required in europe etc, it would matter, except for the look.

This version won't see Europe.

 

[Crissa]

I am baffled why people are so stuck on a beta prototype having or not having all the lights working. It's a beta prototype, wires break and get disconnected.

-Crissa

 

[Ogre]

I am baffled why people are so stuck on a beta prototype having or not having all the lights working. It's a beta prototype, wires break and get disconnected.

-Crissa

Also, likely running alpha software which changes on a daily basis. Software always lags hardware, by necessity.

 

[Crissa]

Likely running alpha software which likely changes on a daily basis. Software always lags hardware, by necessity.

I mean, I suppose every poster is running alpha software in their wetware but... I never really thought about it that way.

-Crissa

 

[Ogre]

I mean, I suppose every poster is running alpha software in their wetware but... I never really thought about it that way.

-Crissa

This explains so much.

 

[RVAC]

I would say the primary driver behind the decision to keep the width at 79.8" (5% reduction) as opposed to 82" (~3% reduction) or 84" (concept) is aero efficiency.

One of the other big things, at least here in Australia, is that the wheels are not allowed to stick out beyond the body of the vehicle. So maybe for here they will have to do slightly larger flares, or a different wheel offset, if that is possible whilst retaining wheel well clearances. So it would have to look like the first photo without the wheel cap. At least here the width lighting thing is unnecessary from what I know.

I'm of the opinion the wheels that we have seen on the Beta truck recently are the ones from the original concept truck, production ones (both street and off-road options) will be narrower and thus not stick out from the fender flares.

 

[cvalue13]

I'm of the opinion the wheels that we have seen on the Beta truck recently are the ones from the original concept truck, production ones (both street and off-road options) will be narrower and thus not stick out from the fender flares.

Of course we don’t know what will be on the production units (and there will surely be multiple options), but what we’ve seen of late are not the same one-off concept tires from the original concept truck

These are the one-off concept tires from 2019 unveil:

These are the tire in the Franz unit from investor day, that was giving rides to key institutional investors:

these are the tires from indoor investor day proto:

So, the indoor investor day tires have similar sidewall design and offroad tread as the 2019 unveil tires, but I expect they are also a good bit smaller than the tires on the unveil proto

The outdoor investor day proto have entirely different sidewalls and more of an AT - hybrid tread, different from both unveil and indoor

Note that these outdoor version of the tires have been seen for a while now:

Hard to tell if the more street versions seen on early beta protos will be production, because I don’t think I’ve seen any street wirh sidewalls so obviously designed to flange with the aero hubcaps. It’s possible the street offering just doesn’t have that design offered. But if we see a street version with sidewall design, we should be pretty sure they’re near production offerings (no other reason to create that sidewall design).

Sponsored